AVS Forum banner

1 - 20 of 39 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
747 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Is this anything to get excited about?.... Am thinking of saving for that new 2k Sony, but thinking maybe i should just buy a top 1080p as all my displays are 1080p at the minute.


Just out of interest what is an amazing and sharp 1080p camcorder for under £1200 -$2000, happy to buy used?


Thanks!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,932 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by jamieuk147  /t/1524703/whats-your-view-on-1080p-vs-4k-regards-camcorders#post_24541219


Is this anything to get excited about?.... Am thinking of saving for that new 2k Sony, but thinking maybe i should just buy a top 1080p as all my displays are 1080p at the minute.


Just out of interest what is an amazing and sharp 1080p camcorder for under £1200 -$2000, happy to buy used?


Thanks!!

Easy - the most amazing and sharp 1080p camcorder is the Sony AX100 - shooting 4k. Everyone is stunned by the 4k video from this camera, and almost everyone is viewing the 4k videos at 1080p. No one has 4k TV's or 4k monitors, but yet viewing at 1080 the 4k videos are quite visibly superior to 1080-origin videos from any camcorder. They look better yet at screen resolutions above 1080p, but never mind. With the 4K you are future-proofed and get better-looking 1080 (HD) video right now. The file sizes are not much bigger (in fact the same as 1080 DSLR file sizes).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
747 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
Thanks for that!.... Does it not matter it doesn't do 60fps as I see people complaining, is 30fps that bad?


I better get saving!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,932 Posts
Others can weigh in on frame rates (much of that griping is theoretical - remember all your blurays are 24 fps).


Here is an AX100 video you can download and see for yourself:



This is the only video I know that is not re-compressed from what the camera produces and has motion and different kinds of scenes:


You need to join Vimeo to download the UHD file (it is free).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
55 Posts

Hi Jamie,

 

I have been looking at this myself but having watched this Sony 4K camera go from show to shipping it really does deliver the goods. Looking at the rather excellent footage so far 30P will not be a big issue for many.

 

Though I need/hope to see some in car traffic footage with shutter speeds from a normal sharp image to slow light trail for my needs. As this would also show up any deficiency in the image stabiliser.

 

Need have to get saving too, though not long before it starts shipping in the UK and Europe..
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,630 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by jamieuk147  /t/1524703/whats-your-view-on-1080p-vs-4k-regards-camcorders#post_24541379


What about Panasonic GH4 vs the Sony?
The GH4 is a m4/3rd body only so if you don't have any m4/3rd lenses it will cost you more than the Sony AX100 since most top quality lenses like the 12-35mm F2.8 and 35-100mm F2.8 cost over $1,000 each.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
349 Posts
Hi
Quote:
Originally Posted by markr041  /t/1524703/whats-your-view-on-1080p-vs-4k-regards-camcorders#post_24541331


Others can weigh in on frame rates (much of that griping is theoretical - remember all your blurays are 24 fps).

Shot by professional filmtographers who know the limitations of 24fps, does the average consumer?


Yes spend several thousand pounds on dolly's, steadycams, stick with the 180 degree shutter rule (if someone doesn't know what that means then they will have juddery 4K footage), have a crew, good lighting and sets, use shallow depth of field and remember the 7 second pan , it will look, well film like and make an excellent Blu-ray disc transfer.


Come 6-12 months time and everyone will be going on about just how much better 60p and 4K for video is.


Lets be clear, 24fps is a film frame rate best left to film and the professionals, video frame rates have been 60 (either interlaced or more recently progressive) for decades.


These early 4K cameras are not shooting 4K as it should be, temporal information is being traded for extra resolution. So what you gain one way, you lose another. This is before you factor in the huge compression ratios.

Lets get some 1080P at 50Mits/sec at 60P frame rates of something with motion up on line for downloading, and videoed again at 4K 24fps, then we can see the differences so everyone can decide what looks better or if the trade off is worth it. (Needs to be Vimeo so we can download as all online services re-compress to 30fps).


4K may provide good 1080P, but does it provide good 4K?


Regards


Phil
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
463 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by markr041  /t/1524703/whats-your-view-on-1080p-vs-4k-regards-camcorders#post_24541246


Easy - the most amazing and sharp 1080p camcorder is the Sony AX100 - shooting 4k. Everyone is stunned by the 4k video from this camera, and almost everyone is viewing the 4k videos at 1080p. No one has 4k TV's or 4k monitors, but yet viewing at 1080 the 4k videos are quite visibly superior to 1080-origin videos from any camcorder. They look better yet at screen resolutions above 1080p, but never mind. With the 4K you are future-proofed and get better-looking 1080 (HD) video right now. The file sizes are not much bigger (in fact the same as 1080 DSLR file sizes).

if you shot the sony cx760 at FH mode (1080i) and shot the sony ax100 at FH mode (1080i)


is there a difference in video sharpness? thanks in advance
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,346 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by jamieuk147  /t/1524703/whats-your-view-on-1080p-vs-4k-regards-camcorders#post_24541219


Is this anything to get excited about?....

With due respect to all that are enthused about 4K, I'm not there. There are too many things from available displays, file size, upload times, distribution systems and editing challenges that are still in the way.


My current project is a 20 minute travelogue for a couple dozen people that drove across the country together. None would even know if I shot it in 4K, let alone care. It is unlikely that I will post any links here as it will have no 4K footage and will have too much editing and lossy rendering to be acceptable. The two dozen involved may actually enjoy watching on their HD TVs, computers, tablets and phones.


Bill
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,932 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by bsprague  /t/1524703/whats-your-view-on-1080p-vs-4k-regards-camcorders#post_24542764


With due respect to all that are enthused about 4K, I'm not there. There are too many things from available displays, file size, upload times, distribution systems and editing challenges that are still in the way.

No, no. no: the 60 Mbps bitrate is not different from DSLR 1080 video (EOS M included) so the file sizes are not especially big; my $279 laptop plays 4K videos fine; all my editing software works the same. And finally, your friends will be astonished, no matter what they view the video on, how much better it looks than what they are used to seeing, even with re-compression. The key point is that re-compressed HD looks worse than re-compressed 4K on any viewing device. You do not need new displays, new software, or new gigantic drives - and you will benefit from 4K right away using your current displays. Your gaming laptop will handle 4K easily. Your MFT lenses will work on the GH4. All this does not mean your friends (and we) will not enjoy your current videos (and we (or at least I) will refrain from saying how much better it would look if it were shot 4K).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
33,551 Posts
Mark is absolutely on target. There is no need to be fearful of the 30p frame rate, DSLRs have been shooting like that for years.


The fact is, downsampled 4K on an HD screen looks demonstrably better than any HD cam you'll buy. There's just no contest. None. You simply do not need a 4K display to appreciate this and it's the reason so many of us are so excited about it when viewed on our 'old fashioned' HDTVs and monitors.



There's one guy that jumps into every Sony or 4K thread to try to dampen spirits by spouting temporal information issues, cameras that are not shooting 4K the way it 'should be' shot, inadequate bitrates and so forth. All that does nothing to change the reality of how much better 4K, even downsampled to HD, looks than video actually shot in HD. It does nothing to contradict the observation of virtually every AX100 owner, the codec is handling 4K far better than anyone thought. This even comes from a couple of owners that were themselves somewhat skeptical of the bitrate and codec. The fact is, Sony has done a great job with this codec, and it's turning out to be far more robust than the skeptics thought.


Further, down the road, when you do get a 4K display, the archived 4K video will look ever so much better than it even does today. When I recently visited an Apple store, I popped my SD card into a 27" IMac with a resolution greater than HD, but significantly less than 4K. It was jaw dropping and the group of about 5 people that had gathered around me, agreed. Everyone was amazed.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
389 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Ross  /t/1524703/whats-your-view-on-1080p-vs-4k-regards-camcorders#post_24543153


The fact is, downsampled 4K on an HD screen looks demonstrably better than any HD cam you'll buy. There's just no contest. None.
I absolutely agree with you in regard to the AX100. But what about the GH4? Does downsampled 4K video shot with a GH4 look "demonstrably better than any HD cam you'll buy" in regard to fine detail resolution? Or is the AX100 unique in that regard? I've noticed on the DVX forum that Dan Carter has said he think the AX100 is the only 4K consumer grade camera that has impressed him with the amount of detail it delivers compared to regular HD cameras like the RX10, RX100 and GH3 he owns.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,418 Posts
Amazing how the same people who were dissing film rates for years now embrace these rates just because they come with the magical 4K frame size.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
349 Posts
Hi
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Ross  /t/1524703/whats-your-view-on-1080p-vs-4k-regards-camcorders#post_24543153


Mark is absolutely on target. There is no need to be fearful of the 30p frame rate, DSLRs have been shooting like that for years.

And in all that time people (like yourself) have been dismissing DSLRs and been promoting the virtues of camcorders designed specifically for video for just as long. No one fears 30fps, it just isn't as good. Who wants to film YouTube frame rates for watching on a big 4K TV, of course now it is suddenly fashionable with a few here because that is all they can do with their new gadgets.
Quote:
The fact is, downsampled 4K on an HD screen looks demonstrably better than any HD cam you'll buy. There's just no contest. None. You simply do not need a 4K display to appreciate this and it's the reason so many of us are so excited about it when viewed on our 'old fashioned' HDTVs and monitors.

Really? You get a benefit from YouTube because essentially you are forcing YouTube to serve a higher bit-rate stream in 4K that is then downscaled to good old 1080P, and the same when taken directly from the camera in that we see 60Mbits/sec recorded footage at 1080P when downscaled, rather than the more typical 28Mbit/sec from HD camcorders. Lets see some 1080P 60fps footage from the Sony at 50Mbits/sec with some action in it, and the same scene shot again in 4K at 30fps, then we can really compare what we find most pleasing. Ken, you have the power to prove the point regarding 4K looking better at 1080P compared to 1080P from the same camera, I find it odd you haven't done this yet.


I'm not sure the downloaded native clips look that much better than a good 1080P video, plus it appears over sharpened and false when I watch the AX100 footage downscaled to 1080P, get that sharpning turned off.
Quote:
There's one guy that jumps into every Sony or 4K thread to try to dampen spirits by spouting temporal information issues, cameras that are not shooting 4K the way it 'should be' shot, inadequate bitrates and so forth. .

That will be me then Ken I expect
. Why, because not everyone is rich and can buy every new camera that is going and this will be a serious investment for a lot of people. The limitations are known, if 30fps was suitable for everything why do we have 60P with the future UHD TV standard at 120fps? Are you saying that 30fps has no limitations at all? We also know the bit-rate is very low for 4K, I've even posted a still showing the complete and utter breakdown of a complicated scene from a clip of yours. We also know that as soon as the new silicon is ready Sony and others will be out with real UHD camcorders telling us how much better they are now they shoot 60fps at decent bit-rates, you know it, I know it, we also know you'll be the first to pre-order one and the AX100 will be consigned to Ebay.


Someone needs to point out the negatives of these cameras which are essentially early prototypes struggling to capture something resembling 4K, this is a public forum and balance is needed. Anyone who considers this a serious investment and something they will have and need to make use of for several years needs to know that this isn't what 4K is about, and very soon, Sony or someone else will be out with something very much better, and these companies will be the first to let us know just how poor their first generation attempts were, and how we should all buy another 4K camcorder.


For people where buying the latest and greatest then posting about it everyday seems to be their actual hobby rather than videography, then being at the bleeding edge is what it is about and the risks of wasting money on gadgets soon to be superseded by the real deal is part and parcel of that hobby, but that doesn't mean that all balance should be thrown out the window.


Regards


Phil
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
349 Posts
Hi
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamieuk147  /t/1524703/whats-your-view-on-1080p-vs-4k-regards-camcorders#post_24541219


Is this anything to get excited about?.... Am thinking of saving for that new 2k Sony, but thinking maybe i should just buy a top 1080p as all my displays are 1080p at the minute.


Just out of interest what is an amazing and sharp 1080p camcorder for under £1200 -$2000, happy to buy used?


Thanks!!

Yes and no. It is exciting as it opens the flood gates to more 4K camcorders, this then fuels the need for 4K displays, competition reduces prices and so on. There are people that question the need for 4K in most homes because you need a pretty big display, or sit really close to see the benefit. When you factor in video we watch now is compressed and is lossy compression at that, and 4K will have an even higher compression ratio (new codecs may help but not in the mainstream yet), we don't see anywhere near the resolution the numbers suggest. This is why people are saying how good 4K looks downscaled to 1080P, this has little to do with 4K itself, but just shows how much 1080P video sources are far from the quality they could be.


Basically 1080P has a lot of headroom for improvement, improvement we could have now without spending much if any on new hardware, but the TV/Film industry doesn't like that idea for obvious reasons. It is only now that 4K is indoctrinated as being what we must have, that some manufacturers have started to allow better capture of 1080P by upping the bit-rates on consumer devices.


The irony will be that the first time we see true 4K footage and resolution and all it should have been, is when we are watching downscaled 8K! It's taken mediocre 4K for us now to realise just how we have been sold short on 1080P all these years.


4K is definitively the way to go, but you are right to question it now. 4K needs to be 60fps, anything lower is a compromise, and when bit-rates are around 200Mbits/sec or better 4K should be able to resolve detail fitting of it's title in most filming situations.


Can you hold off another 12 months. Next year is when 4K will become serious, I strongly suspect we will see an AX200 from Sony, and a GH5 from Panasonic all sporting 60fps 4K at decent bit-rates.


Hopefully we will get some footage posted of 1080P from the Sony AX100, this will be identical to the CX900 and you will be able to decide if the quality is enough for you.


Regards


Phil
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
389 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Philip_L  /t/1524703/whats-your-view-on-1080p-vs-4k-regards-camcorders#post_24543569


Someone needs to point out the negatives of these cameras which are essentially early prototypes struggling to capture something resembling 4K, this is a public forum and balance is needed.
Some of us feel the negatives are minor in relation to the ground breaking benefit that even the downsampled 4K footage from the $2,000 AX100 looks breathtakingly more detailed than regular HD camcorder and DSLR footage including those that cost considerably more than $2,000. For some of us detail resolution is more important than frame rate/bit rate/color quality considerations.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
33,551 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Philip_L  /t/1524703/whats-your-view-on-1080p-vs-4k-regards-camcorders#post_24543569


Hi

And in all that time people (like yourself) have been dismissing DSLRs and been promoting the virtues of camcorders designed specifically for video for just as long. No one fears 30fps, it just isn't as good. Who wants to film YouTube frame rates for watching on a big 4K TV, of course now it is suddenly fashionable with a few here because that is all they can do with their new gadgets.
I never said I didn't prefer 60p to 30p. However that doesn't mean that the other benefits of shooting in 4K don't far outweigh the minor quirks. And Phil, many people prefer shooting in 30p even when 60p is available.


We've already discussed the reasons why Sony likely went with 30p. Those include processor power, data file sizes, media requirement changes with 60p among others.


Further, and as you continue to ignore, implementing the ubiquitous frame doubling (or greater) capabilities of most modern plasmas and LED/LCDs, will smooth out 30p so greatly, as to fool most people in to thinking it was shot in 60p. That's a fact Phil and try as you may to dissuade people from owning a camera like the AX100, won't change that fact. This is the same circuitry that causes the SOE (soap opera effect), but works absolute wonders on 30p.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philip_L  /t/1524703/whats-your-view-on-1080p-vs-4k-regards-camcorders#post_24543569


Really? You get a benefit from YouTube because essentially you are forcing YouTube to serve a higher bit-rate stream in 4K that is then downscaled to good old 1080P, and the same when taken directly from the camera in that we see 60Mbits/sec recorded footage at 1080P when downscaled, rather than the more typical 28Mbit/sec from HD camcorders.

Say what? Are you for real? We are talking about observations from people who OWN the camera Phil, not using YouTube as the basis for these observations. It is abundantly obvious to these people that downsampled 4K to HD looks significantly better (not marginally better) than any HD camera people have owned. This is not a bitrate thing, it's a data thing. You are down sampling a tremendous amount of data to HD, far more information than HD ever had to deal with. You would have to be utterly blind not to see it. This is not some YouTube trick Phil. We now OWN the camera and see it with our own eyes.


You can try to mislead people all you like Phil, but sounding like a flat earth proponent doesn't further your arguments.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philip_L  /t/1524703/whats-your-view-on-1080p-vs-4k-regards-camcorders#post_24543569


I'm not sure the downloaded native clips look that much better than a good 1080P video, plus it appears over sharpened and false when I watch the AX100 footage downscaled to 1080P, get that sharpning turned off.
And you are pretty much alone there. As OWNERS have confirmed Phil, there is more detail there in the down rez'd 1080p. This is not the result of over sharpening since that reduces detail, not enhances it. This is simply more detail. Period. You can stand on your head and spit nickels and that won't change that fact.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philip_L  /t/1524703/whats-your-view-on-1080p-vs-4k-regards-camcorders#post_24543569


Why, because not everyone is rich and can buy every new camera that is going and this will be a serious investment for a lot of people.
Bingo! And there we get to the heart of the problem, don't we Phil? If one can't afford the equipment or chooses not to get it, we knock it. I get it Phil. That's the nature of the internet and these forums. In fact you do this on multiple forums.


You don't have to be 'rich' to afford the AX100 and nobody is disputing the fact that this is a serious investment. But equating 'rich' with the AX100 is being more than a bit disingenuous.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philip_L  /t/1524703/whats-your-view-on-1080p-vs-4k-regards-camcorders#post_24543569


The limitations are known, if 30fps was suitable for everything why do we have 60P with the future UHD TV standard at 120fps? Are you saying that 30fps has no limitations at all?

Since you seem to know me so well, you should know the answer to that and, again, you're being deliberately misleading. I have said many times that I prefer 60p. At the same time my biggest issues with it were prior to the now common ability to apply frame doubling to video on most displays. Perhaps you don't have this on your B&W CRT. Further, the UHD standard allows for 30p as well as higher frame rates, but somehow you left that out Phil..


And again Phil, I have spoken of the 30p limitations. I have said the AX100 is not necessarily the ideal 'sports cam'. Please don't pick and choose what you 'think' I've said.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philip_L  /t/1524703/whats-your-view-on-1080p-vs-4k-regards-camcorders#post_24543569


We also know the bit-rate is very low for 4K, I've even posted a still showing the complete and utter breakdown of a complicated scene from a clip of yours.
We also know and people have shown (even a few that bought and were initially concerned about bitrate) that Sony has done a marvelous job with this codec and its efficiency. The video is far more robust than many thought and I have not seen one owner, not one on multiple forums, who is disappointed with this codec or the camera's output. Is it perfect? Of course not no camera is or will ever be. But somehow Phil, you and only you know the truth. How do you know? Because you pixel peeped one frame grab of one video and found some artifacts. Is this visible with moving video? No. Do people stand 2" in front of their large screen TVs looking for artifacts? No. Would these same artifacts show up in frame grabs from far more expensive cameras with pixel peeping? Yes.


Phil, we live in an age where a camera can speak for itself. People can download native files, not compressed YouTube videos, and put them on their own large screen TVs or computer monitors. They can then see for themselves unhindered by my enthusiasm or you telling them what they 'should' see. The proof is in the pudding.


Enough Phil, this is getting silly. You didn't like the AX100 prior to its release for reasons you've now made clear and you don't like it now. Again Phil, we get it. But I suspect this one man crusade will not stop.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philip_L  /t/1524703/whats-your-view-on-1080p-vs-4k-regards-camcorders#post_24543569


We also know that as soon as the new silicon is ready Sony and others will be out with real UHD camcorders telling us how much better they are now they shoot 60fps at decent bit-rates, you know it, I know it, we also know you'll be the first to pre-order one and the AX100 will be consigned to Ebay.

Quite possibly, and if that's my decision then that's my business. Do I need your approval? And whatever the next iteration is, if you choose not to buy it, then rest assured you'll be there throwing every rock you can find at it.


Phil, the one man Consumer Reports who knows everything about every camera he doesn't own.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
33,551 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by SD90  /t/1524703/whats-your-view-on-1080p-vs-4k-regards-camcorders#post_24543597


Some of us feel the negatives are minor in relation to the ground breaking benefit that even the downsampled 4K footage from the $2,000 AX100 looks breathtakingly more detailed than regular HD camcorder and DSLR footage including those that cost considerably more than $2,000. For some of us detail resolution is more important than frame rate/bit rate/color quality considerations.

Well color quality is important and the AX100 does fine in that area. Yes, bit rate and frame rate are not major issues as long as we're not frequently made aware of those limitations. Again, the AX100 does fine in those areas.


Phil makes these comments about 'mediocre 4K' when I guarantee you he's never seen the AX100 output on a UHD TV. I have and it's worlds better than anything HD. Not even close.


Phil goes on to say that the downsampled 4K on our HD screens is nothing more than what 1080p could look like if it were truly done right. Great! Only one problem with Dr. Phil's argument, we DON'T have that 'perfect' 1080p cam and none of us ever did. If it took the AX100 to get us there, so what, we're there!


We have the added benefit of having that great looking HD ready to be unleashed to 4K when we eventually get our UHD displays. To me that's a win win, but somehow to Phil that's a 'lose lose'. Welcome to the Flat Earth Society.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,630 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Philip_L  /t/1524703/whats-your-view-on-1080p-vs-4k-regards-camcorders#post_24543583


Hi

Yes and no. It is exciting as it opens the flood gates to more 4K camcorders, this then fuels the need for 4K displays, competition reduces prices and so on. There are people that question the need for 4K in most homes because you need a pretty big display, or sit really close to see the benefit. When you factor in video we watch now is compressed and is lossy compression at that, and 4K will have an even higher compression ratio (new codecs may help but not in the mainstream yet), we don't see anywhere near the resolution the numbers suggest. This is why people are saying how good 4K looks downscaled to 1080P, this has little to do with 4K itself, but just shows how much 1080P video sources are far from the quality they could be.


Basically 1080P has a lot of headroom for improvement, improvement we could have now without spending much if any on new hardware, but the TV/Film industry doesn't like that idea for obvious reasons. It is only now that 4K is indoctrinated as being what we must have, that some manufacturers have started to allow better capture of 1080P by upping the bit-rates on consumer devices.


The irony will be that the first time we see true 4K footage and resolution and all it should have been, is when we are watching downscaled 8K! It's taken mediocre 4K for us now to realise just how we have been sold short on 1080P all these years.


4K is definitively the way to go, but you are right to question it now. 4K needs to be 60fps, anything lower is a compromise, and when bit-rates are around 200Mbits/sec or better 4K should be able to resolve detail fitting of it's title in most filming situations.


Can you hold off another 12 months. Next year is when 4K will become serious, I strongly suspect we will see an AX200 from Sony, and a GH5 from Panasonic all sporting 60fps 4K at decent bit-rates.


Hopefully we will get some footage posted of 1080P from the Sony AX100, this will be identical to the CX900 and you will be able to decide if the quality is enough for you.


Regards


Phil
I bet in 2015 the AX200 and GH5 will both support UHS-II SDXC cards like the Panasonic 64GB microP2 UHS-II Memory Card and SanDisk 64GB Extreme PRO SDXC UHS-II Memory Card with data rates more than fast enough for 4K @60fps.


http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/963983-REG/panasonic_aj_p2m064ag_64gb_microp2_fast_memory.html
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1030991-REG/sandisk_sdsdxpb_064g_a46_64gb_extreme_pro_sdxc_uhs_ii.html
 
1 - 20 of 39 Posts
Top